DISTRICT COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1585, 21 May 1887, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMAttU--WEDNESDAY, MAY 18. (Before His Honor Judge Broad). IN BANKRUPTCY. Orders of discharge were granted to John William Stonyer and William John Peters. An order for costs oat of the estate was granted in the latter case. PROBATE A#D ADMINISTRATION. la the mattnr of William Collins Andrews deceased. i)r Foster applied for probate for the Executrix.—-Granted. Letters of administration ware granted to {Robert Taylor, under the will of the late Jane Taylor. OITIL CASE. (Before His Honor and a Jury.) W. R. Brown v. W. Beattie and Sarah Beli, damages £32 s*. Mr Perry for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. The following jury was empanelled : Messrs John Barrett (foreman), W. J. Birry, Samuel Bee, and Walter Booking* ham. Mr Perry, in opening, siid plaintiff (who sued bv his attorney) was at present ahsent from the colony, and was the owner of a certain piece of land. Defendant*, a brother and sister,, were coexecutors of the will of the late John Bell, whose widow the female defendant was. The circumstances were as follow : —Beattie had leased certain land from the plaintiff, of which he afterwards transferred the lease to one John Bell, now deceased. Bell, during his terra of occupancy, neglected the . ground, and allowed gorse to overruo it, etc., tnd plaintiff now claimed damages from the defendant. In addition to a general denial of th 9 material allegation*, defendants pleaded that, though Beattie had made over his interest to Bell, Dp actual deed of assignment was forthcoming, and therefore there was no legal proof of liability. Joseph G. Helmore. E. Acton, and Divid Voung (farmer, Waitohi) gave evidence for. the plaintiff. Dtvid Vou-g, the present occupier of the farm, said the place was in a bad state wh-n Beattie hid it, no better when Bell got it, and stil worse when be (witness) took it. He estimated the cost of puttiog everything right at £25. Sarah Bill, James Bell, Joseph Mediotock (carpenter), and Jimes Beattie gave evidence fur the d«f«udnnts. James Beli, who said he wis managing his late father's farm for his mo'her, reckoned that £lO would put everything in good irder. James Beattie, broth * of Mrs Bill, thought that £8 would pay for all that wa» needed to be done. Mr Hay applied for a nonsuit, but this was refused, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £l4. The Court then adjourned till the following day. .' APPEAL OABES.

Thursday, May 19,1887. [Before His Honor Judge Broad], MATTHEWS V. COOMB. This was an appeal against tbs decision of the Resident Magistrate- who gave judgment against John and James Matthews on the 11th Marsh last for having in their possession an unlicensed stil! for (he purpose of distilling ' spirits: The grounds of the appeal were(l) That James Matthews did not distill, spirits, and (2) that'he exhibits produced were entirely unfitted for the distillation of any spirits. The possession of the exhibits produced was admitted. Mr Hiy, who appeared (or the appeflaats, argued very ably in support of bis contention, and Mr White, who appeared for the other side, quoted several eases to show the appeal ought not to be allowed. The argument lasted for three hours, when His Honor delivered judgment as follows In a proceeding before* Magistrates by a Statutory Officer to recover a penalty for a breach of the provisions of the Distillation Act the Magistrates have no power to award to the Crown. Section 86 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1882, does not apply to such case*, Therefore as the defendant was charged with having in his possession an unlicensed ■till aad the Justices in the conviction ordered him to pay a penalty of £IOO and £7 for costs, the conviction was bad and would be quashed. VBLVIN T, MID. This was a case on appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate at Temuka. Mr J. W. White, with him Mr W. G. Aspinall, appeared in support of the appeal, and Mr Toss will appeared for the defendant. In this case, as will be remembered, i, John W. Telrin was arrested and charged fwith the larceny of a quantity of from the shop of C. H. Reid, and after hearing the evidence Mr J. ,S. Res wick, U.M., convicted him of th« offence, and inflicted on him a fine of £lO and coats, or in default to b« imprisoned for one month, and also ordered, him to return the tobacco to Reid. Tfie decision wag

:•:;,!' appealed against on the ground that the evidence did not show that the accused war guilty of larceny. On the oase being colled Mr Tonavrill raised Home irrelevant objections, but the Court over-ruled them, and decided to hear the case ■ dt novo. The evidence in chief of C. H. Reid, ,<be respondent, was to the stoie offset as that given by him in Temuka, but in cross-examination be said, in reply to Mr -. White: I have known Mr Velvin for six years at least. I know nothing wrong about his character. I heard reflections on Mr Ye Tin's moral character. I asked Mr Siegert to-oome in and testify for me to-day, but he did not wish, and I did not press him to come; lie told ma if I sent for him he would bring his books io. I swear this. I have never gone by auy other name than the one 1 bear now. I never was convicted of any offence. I was fined 10s one morning, foar years ago, for being impertinent to a policeman. It was not for throwing stones on soinebedy's roof at four o'clock in the morning, and behaving like a larrikin. I got this tobacco from the firm of Taylor and Velvin, Ic'nrged.Velvin with stealing because h«> ■■ steal it. He »•■•■»>•. >xamined at considerable , length with regard to accounts between .himself and Velvin, and admitted th-tt at the end of March he owed Velvin and Taylor £3 or £4. He gave Velvin and , Taylor no notice of his meeting of creditors. He might have o ved a few sbil- , lings or £1 to his Temuki creditors. Ho gave none of them notice. He was also examined with regard to laying the information in Timaru, and admitted he saw the Inspector of Police on the subiect. Mr Tosswill was with him. It was about 7 o'cleck when he went across to tell. Velvin to return the tobacco. Mr Tosswill said the police offered tr> take up the case. : Thomas Radfcrd, a lad employed by Beid, repeated the evidence he gave in Temuka, and said the reason the tobacco was, taken to VelWn's store was because Beid had not weights sufficient to weigh the tobacco. He helped to take some of the tobacco across. For all Vslvin knew Beid might have corao in at any moment while he w,as there. After a time he went * across aDd asked Velvin "to please return the tobacco." He went across to Velvin's abop abont 7.30, and Reid went across between 9 and 9.30. Ho made no objection to Velvin taking the tobaoco. W. Wilis, Clerk of the Court, Tamuk*, produced certain documents, aDd J. T. M. Hayhurst, J.P., who sat nith the R.M. ... at the hearing of the case, was examine), and said be knew Velvin to be a man of ' excellent charaoter. This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr White submitted he had no cas--to answer. Hiß Honor agreed with Mr White, and ■aid no larceny had been committed. It - was merely a matter of accounts between the parties. The appeal was allowed with coita, £lO 10d, against Reid, nw\ also witness' expenses and costs out of pocket.